Can't annulment tribunals dissolve valid marriages?

[merdecranz]

So it seems to me that there is the situation in the Catholic Church where people are having their marriages annulled, even though at the time of the marriage, it was valid. Then they re-marry, believing that this second union is valid, when objectively speaking, they’re still married to their first spouse. As far as I’m aware, annulment tribunals are not infallible…

Consider:

Catholic #1 reads about annulments 20 yrs./5 children after her marriage to a non-Catholic. She realizes her marriage is invalid. Her husband scoffs at the prospect of “renewing their vows” to convalidate their marriage. She petitions for radical sanation and receives it. Their 20-yr.-old “lack-of-form” wedding and failure to obtain a dispensation to marry a non-Catholic is swept aside and their marriage is radically sanated. No one in the parish knows the difference except spouse #1, her pastor and bishop, and the Holy See.

Catholic #2 reads about annulments 20 yrs./5 children after her marriage to a non-Catholic. She realizes her marriage is invalid. She has been chatting with an old, high-school sweetheart online unknown to her husband. She voices her displeasures with her imperfect husband, and files for divorce (her pastor advised her that the local tribunal won’t accept her annulment petition without a divorce decree.) Her children and husband are shocked! (Her pastor has met her husband before and believes he is a poor role-model for their five children.) He helps spouse #2 file a “lack-of-form” petition for an annulment. It is routinely-approved and her husband is informed their marriage never existed. Spouse #2 announces her plans to marry h.s. sweetheart in her local church.

I could devise more such scenarios, and I’m sure there are tens-of-thousands of non-Catholics who wedded spouse #2s who’ve had their marriages declared “non-existent” by the Catholic Church. How can our Church have the hubris to speak of “social justice, of peace, of compassion, and of charity” when it treats loving spouses and their children as in the example of Catholic #2?

This is but one example of how canon law claims to serve the needs “pastorally” of one spouse, while driving a spike through the heart and soul of the other spouse AND THE CHILDREN! Many of these wounded spouses and children leave the faith, never to return!

Christ has a solution (1 Cor. 7:10-11). Legal separations are licit rarely per God’s marital commandment–not divorces! (Legally-separated spouses cannot remarry.) Christ taught troubled spouses to remain single and/or to reconcile with their first spouse. N. American Bishops ignore the marital commandment and give lax annulments instead. [If a bishop teaches you abortion is licit, will that make it so?]

“The vast majority of adults are capable of a valid marriage, and the vast majority of marriages are therefore valid.” Egan, Edward M. “Nullity of Marriage for Reason of Insanity or Lack of Due Discretion of Judgement.” Ephemerides Iuris Canonici Vol. 39. No. 1-2 (1983): p 9-54. Page 36. Cardinal Egan helped revise the current Code of Canon Law.

Many N. American bishops don’t follow Rotal jurisprudence in their tribunals or they wouldn’t be able to dispense a great-majority of their specious annulments. Popes have been saying this every year for decades in their Rotal Addresses. Some of us pray for Divine intervention to occur for marriage to be restored to its rightful dignity.

 

[JRKH]

Consider:

Catholic #1 reads about annulments 20 yrs./5 children after her marriage to a non-Catholic. She realizes her marriage is invalid. Her husband scoffs at the prospect of “renewing their vows” to convalidate their marriage. She petitions for radical sanation and receives it. Their 20-yr.-old “lack-of-form” wedding and failure to obtain a dispensation to marry a non-Catholic is swept aside and their marriage is radically sanated. No one in the parish knows the difference except spouse #1, her pastor and bishop, and the Holy See.

God Bless this woman…

Catholic #2 reads about annulments 20 yrs./5 children after her marriage to a non-Catholic. She realizes her marriage is invalid. She has been chatting with an old, high-school sweetheart online unknown to her husband. She voices her displeasures with her imperfect husband, and files for divorce (her pastor advised her that the local tribunal won’t accept her annulment petition without a divorce decree.) Her children and husband are shocked! (Her pastor has met her husband before and believes he is a poor role-model for their five children.) He helps spouse #2 file a “lack-of-form” petition for an annulment. It is routinely-approved and her husband is informed their marriage never existed. Spouse #2 announces her plans to marry h.s. sweetheart in her local church.

This woman will have to answer for her sin before God.

I could devise more such scenarios, and I’m sure there are tens-of-thousands of non-Catholics who wedded spouse #2s who’ve had their marriages declared “non-existent” by the Catholic Church. How can our Church have the hubris to speak of “social justice, of peace, of compassion, and of charity” when it treats loving spouses and their children as in the example of Catholic #2?

Please explain how “The Church” as mistreated the “loving spouse and their children” in example #2. The woman certainly has mistreated them…The Church has acted properly.

This is but one example of how canon law claims to serve the needs “pastorally” of one spouse, while driving a spike through the heart and soul of the other spouse AND THE CHILDREN! Many of these wounded spouses and children leave the faith, never to return!

Again - one would need to explain how it is “The Church” that has done this rather than the individual who committed the sin of coveting another spouse and sought and received the annulment on fraudulent grounds.
Yes I say fraudulent grounds because, in your second example, the woman did not give her husband the opportunity to have their marriage blessed by the Church. Instead simply opting for divorce etc…It is SHE who drove the spike - not the Church.

It’s easy to spout off “possibilities” - but when one begins to examine what actually happens in these scenarios they begin to fall apart.

Peace
James

 

[Gorgias]

merde,

Let me ask you a question: in both your examples, at the point that Catholic1 and Catholic2 read about annulments, are they objectively in the state of sacramental marriage?

(Of course not.)

So, Catholic1 takes the route of finding the most pastoral provision that I can imagine the Church ever providing: it creates a ‘legal fiction’, as it were, that allows for the marriage to be considered valid from the time of the wedding (provided that they both gave valid consent back then and haven’t revoked it since).

What grace! What pastoral love! What amazing opportunities to take a union that hadn’t been sacramental, and sacramentalize it!

Your approach looks at the two vastly different situations, and blames the Church for the uncharitable actions of the wife and mother in case #2. How unreasonable is that?!?!?

But, just to continue considering your thought-experiment…

In the second example, the woman finds an old sweetheart and begins a clandestine relationship with him. Keep in mind that she’s not in a sacramental marriage. Would you say that, at the time she’s carrying on, with her man-on-the-side, that she’s giving full and valid consent to her marriage? I would think that it’s very difficult to say that she is! So, at this point, even if she were to request sanation: (1) she’d have to have a (new) act of consent and (2) the sanation would only be effective at the time of the new act of consent!

In any case, it seems that you’re attempting to demonstrate two (nearly) identical situations and assert that the Church allows for different courses of action, in an unpastoral way. I think that this is not the case: rather, the two situations are radically different! In both, there is no sacramental marriage (only a civil act), but in one, a person acts faithfully and regularizes their marriage, while in the other, the person takes advantage of the Church and (legally, but deviously) finds a way to abandon their relationship (one which, as you admit, is only a civil marriage and which has a poor role model for a father).

I could devise more such scenarios, and I’m sure there are tens-of-thousands of non-Catholics who wedded spouse #2s who’ve had their marriages declared “non-existent” by the Catholic Church.

Tens of thousands? There’s no way to substantiate this claim; so, it’s only fair to treat it as hyperbole.

How can our Church have the hubris to speak of “social justice, of peace, of compassion, and of charity” when it treats loving spouses and their children as in the example of Catholic #2?

This is but one example of how canon law claims to serve the needs “pastorally” of one spouse, while driving a spike through the heart and soul of the other spouse AND THE CHILDREN!

Umm… Spouse #2 started an adulterous relationship, divorced her husband, and abandoned her family, before the Church ever got involved in an annulment proceeding. And you’re blaming the Church for her actions? Really…???

Many of these wounded spouses and children leave the faith, never to return!

In your example – which is the only basis for your argument – the husband was never party to the faith: he was a non-Catholic, which is how your example was able to proceed as such…

As for the children, it is a horrible thing when a parent leaves the family. Yet, without the annulment, you’d have no difference in the action of the wife, wouldn’t you? She’d still have been part of an adulterous relationship; she’d still have filed for divorce; she’d still have abandoned her family.

Christ has a solution (1 Cor. 7:10-11). Legal separations are licit rarely per God’s marital commandment–not divorces!

Christ’s own words are, "“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (Mt 19:9) Here, we have a particular ‘solution’ – if the marriage itself is unlawful, then there is no ‘divorce’ that is adulterous and sinful.

“The vast majority of adults are capable of a valid marriage, and the vast majority of marriages are therefore valid.” Egan, Edward M.

Yet, in your example, despite the fact that the women were capable of valid marriage, they chose not to pursue valid marriage. Cardinal Egan is talking about a different situation than the one you’ve raised; it’s unfair to use his words here to prop up your argument.

Some of us pray for Divine intervention to occur for marriage to be restored to its rightful dignity.

Does sacramental marriage have proper dignity? Of course. Does non-sacramental marriage rise to the level of dignity of sacramental marriage…?

 

[Gorgias]

Spouse #2 announces her plans to marry h.s. sweetheart in her local church.

Which sin would that be? Leaving a civil marriage? Getting her children away from a poor father? Starting a new relationship with a valid Church wedding?

 

[surritter]

The “absolutist statement” was in reference to a valid, sacramental marriage. Even the Pope can’t dissolve those. The Pauline/Petrine privalege cases are valid non-sacramental marriages.

Right. So once again, the following statement is true: A valid marriage can sometimes be dissolved. (No use of the word sacramental here – the key word is valid.)

So our Church does not teach that a valid marriage is always permanent and unbreakable. Just that a sacramental marriage is.

 

[tee_eff_em]

So our Church does not teach that a valid marriage is always permanent and unbreakable. Just that a sacramental marriage is.

And more so: The Church teaches that a *consummated *sacramental marriage is indissoluble except by death.

tee

 

[Gorgias]

Which sin would that be? Leaving a civil marriage? Getting her children away from a poor father? Starting a new relationship with a valid Church wedding?

You know what? James meant that, in the example given, the affair was gravely sinful – and he’s right!

 

[JRKH]

Which sin would that be? Leaving a civil marriage? Getting her children away from a poor father? Starting a new relationship with a valid Church wedding?

Let’s see…
In scenario number one, the woman asked the husband to have the marriage convalidated in the Church. In the second scenario she did not…WHY??..Not because her husband (non-Catholic) wanted to leave (the principle in the Pauline privilege). The scenario is presented as the husband being shocked at this sudden move…

We cannot apply the Pauline privilege here because that applies where the non-Catholic refuses to live in peace with the Catholic spouse. So - if he left she would be on solid ground. However in the scenario presented, the wife leaves and this is not permitted in St Paul’s instructions on the matter for he says…
12 To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. 16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your (unbelieving) husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife? (1 Cor 7)
Now - I will grant that there are many details missing from the scenario and hypotheticals are notoriously hard to pin down…But the author must have had a reason for injecting the h.s. sweetheart in there (not present in scenario #1) and NOT asking the husband to have the marriage convalidated in the Church (present in scenario #1)…
These things indicate the wife acting in a less than forthright way toward her husband - and likewise toward her children - and toward the tribunal.
So - having said all of that, I would say that her sin will be “False witness” at the very least…

Peace
James

 

[SMHW]

Consider:

Catholic #1 reads about annulments 20 yrs./5 children after her marriage to a non-Catholic. She realizes her marriage is invalid. Her husband scoffs at the prospect of “renewing their vows” to convalidate their marriage. She petitions for radical sanation and receives it. Their 20-yr.-old “lack-of-form” wedding and failure to obtain a dispensation to marry a non-Catholic is swept aside and their marriage is radically sanated. No one in the parish knows the difference except spouse #1, her pastor and bishop, and the Holy See.

Catholic #2 reads about annulments 20 yrs./5 children after her marriage to a non-Catholic. She realizes her marriage is invalid. She has been chatting with an old, high-school sweetheart online unknown to her husband. She voices her displeasures with her imperfect husband, and files for divorce (her pastor advised her that the local tribunal won’t accept her annulment petition without a divorce decree.) Her children and husband are shocked! (Her pastor has met her husband before and believes he is a poor role-model for their five children.) He helps spouse #2 file a “lack-of-form” petition for an annulment. It is routinely-approved and her husband is informed their marriage never existed. Spouse #2 announces her plans to marry h.s. sweetheart in her local church.

I’m not sure about the second marriage listed here but is seems that the first one was objectively invalid from the beginning and is from the Church’s perspective not much different from a couple who have lived together without benefit of marriage for 20 years and then separate. The ideal thing to do would seem to be for the couple to marry (for the first time) but whatever sin might be involved with the breakup objectively cannot be a sin of divorce or adultery.

 

[merdecranz]

Please explain how “The Church” has mistreated the “loving spouse and their children” in example #2.

James (from a review of your post-promoted book) “… page 229… we’re all in desperate need of God, of His forgiveness, of His love, of His Holy Spirit, and all of us need to abandon our pride, admit our need, and come to the foot of the Cross to receive mercy and forgiveness. And we need to stay there.” The unbelieving spouse (and/or) children of Catholic #2 will likely never learn this message after the selfish act of marital and family abortion, facilitated by the letter-of-the-law-annulment provided by the Church. The pain of abandonment/rejection, facilitated by the Church’s legerdemain, will likely create such a wall of scarring that grace will strain to break through with great difficulty. Six souls that may have been won to faith by loving perseverance of wife/mother #2 are likely forever-lost.

The woman certainly has mistreated them…

If the Church taught the marital commandment–esp. the mandate toward reconciliation throughout the twenty years (in homilies, etc.; INSTEAD OF TOLERATING DIVORCE AND PROMOTING ANNULMENTS)–temporary separation, at most, might have occurred. A long-term marriage and another nuclear family might have been preserved, instead of being easily-destroyed!

The Church has acted properly.

There is no support of this natural marriage by the Church by providing a red-carpeted exit-way from a two-decade-long marriage and nuclear family! Every husband has faults. It is not the pastor’s job to interject his personal opinions toward a father he rarely sees or knows. His job was to counsel the wife to persevere in her vows toward her beloved, hoping by example to win her unbelieving husband and their children to the faith! Pastor #2 could have suggested the radical sanation requested by Catholic #1. How many pastors routinely fight to keep spouses faithful to their vows (Heb. 13:4) vs. provide easy escape-paths via divorce/annulment during marital dischord with the temptation toward remarriage?

Again - one would need to explain how it is “The Church” that has done this rather than the individual who committed the sin of coveting another spouse and sought and received the annulment on fraudulent grounds. Yes I say fraudulent grounds because, in your second example, the woman did not give her husband the opportunity to have their marriage blessed by the Church. Instead simply opting for divorce etc…It is SHE who drove the spike - not the Church.
It’s easy to spout off “possibilities” - but when one begins to examine what actually happens in these scenarios they begin to fall apart.

Indeed it is “easy” to see that Pastor #2 didn’t perform his duty to reconcile Catholic #2 in her moments of weakness. More-importantly: Neither did pastor #2 hold wife #2 accountable to God’s marital commandment! By interjecting his own doubts toward unbeliever #2, and by offering the temptation of a red-carpeted annulment, bishop #2–via his agent/pastor #2–helped to destroy/undermine this two-decade-long marriage, family, and likely-alienate six souls from the faith BY CASTING THEM ASUNDER!

Wife/mother #2 may have been the ONLY LINK toward conversion (hence: salvation) for the six souls in family #2. Pastor #2 has promoted the road-kill of another broken marriage and has stolen (5x5=25) years from the lives of children #2 (The Longevity Project; 2001). In their memories, I can easily imagine unbeliever-husband #2 and children #2 forever associating pastor #2 AND HIS BISHOP as the agents who helped destroy their marriage and family and extinguish any love for the faith they may have had!

 

[dans0622]

Consider: …

N. American Bishops ignore the marital commandment and give lax annulments instead. …

“The vast majority of adults are capable of a valid marriage, and the vast majority of marriages are therefore valid.” Egan, Edward M. “Nullity of Marriage for Reason of Insanity or Lack of Due Discretion of Judgement.” Ephemerides Iuris Canonici Vol. 39. No. 1-2 (1983): p 9-54. Page 36. Cardinal Egan helped revise the current Code of Canon Law.

Many N. American bishops don’t follow Rotal jurisprudence in their tribunals or they wouldn’t be able to dispense a great-majority of their specious annulments. Popes have been saying this every year for decades in their Rotal Addresses. …

Hello,

Your examples are “lack of form” cases. They have nothing to do with “laxity” or marital capacity or “Rotal jurisprudence.” Indeed, they account for a great many cases but you cannot fault tribunals for this: the Council of Trent introduced this and it has been mandated since then, by Popes. The requirements of canonical form are clear and the consequence of not observing them are certain. Some want to eliminate the whole idea of requiring canonical form. I might agree with that but the current law is what it is and we underlings in tribunals and in dioceses have to apply the law. Pastoral practice, as in your example #2, could be better. But, don’t expect tribunal personnel to be engaged in pastoral practice. That would be a total disaster.

Dan

 

[Mrs_Sally]

In discussing marriage in the Church, one very important element is our witness as lay married people. Yes, priests can be more clear about church teaching, but what will resonate with young adults preparing for marriage, and young married couples, is the loving examples of Catholic couples around them.

We cannot just complain that tribunals are rubber stamping annulments, we need to show a better way. Be involved in youth ministry, young adult groups, pre-cana, groups for young families. Without examples before them of faithful Catholic couples and families, the only examples those preparing for marriage have is a secular culture with 50% divorce which thinks the answer is to simply not get married.

 

[merdecranz]

…don’t expect tribunal personnel to be engaged in pastoral practice. That would be a total disaster.Dan

Dan, this recent student of canon law was taught that the whole purpose of canon law is to be pastoral!

Some of **my professors describe canon law as a** (humongous--my word not theirs) **pastoral tool**.

I definitely learned not to be scandalized by scandal, and that terrible messes can be cleaned up and are worth cleaning up! Every one of us is a potential mess-maker and scandal-producer, like it or not! Canon law helps us keep things running smoothly and **when necessary shows us how to fix what is broken**. In many of my classes we had to talk about distressing things--all kinds of distressing things, and with lots of real life examples!--but it was always in the light of how to retrieve the situation. It is very Christ-like in the sense that it is not a place for self-righteousness or loss of faith but facing human weakness, recognizing it, and dealing with it.

ourseton.org/blog-entry/mr-westhoff/canon-lawyering

How did pastor/bishop/tribunal #2 help “fix what is broken” in wife/marriage #2?

 

[dans0622]

Dan, this recent student of canon law was taught that the whole purpose of canon law is to be pastoral!

…

How did pastor/bishop/tribunal #2 help “fix what is broken” in wife/marriage #2?

Hello,

Of course, the purpose of canon law is to govern (pastor) the Church and everyone should apply the principles of the law, according to their function. People who work in tribunals, however, are not trained to be “pastoral.” They are not counselors or advisors or “pastors” in the way a priest in a parish is supposed to be.

As I said, the pastor could have done more in your example #2. The tribunal personnel, however, were only asked to do what they had to do: confirm that the person was not married according to the law of the Church. There’s no “wiggle room” for the tribunal. As a matter of law, a Catholic who enters a civil union with no regard for canonical form is in a “non-existent” marriage. I understand your point (implicit point, at least) about trying to have the couple “convalidate” the marriage: that is how it could have been fixed. That’s not something a tribunal can demand and by the time the woman in your example came to the tribunal, is it reasonable to think she would have done it? I don’t think so.

There are reasons to criticize tribunals but not when it comes to processing lack of form cases. If you change a few details in your examples (i.e., made them valid marriages, not lack of form, civil unions), I would have nothing critical to say. As it is, I will defend my coworkers.

Dan

 

[JRKH]

James (from a review of your post-promoted book) “… page 229… we’re all in desperate need of God, of His forgiveness, of His love, of His Holy Spirit, and all of us need to abandon our pride, admit our need, and come to the foot of the Cross to receive mercy and forgiveness. And we need to stay there.”

This is a beautiful quote - thanks for sharing it.

The unbelieving spouse (and/or) children of Catholic #2 will likely never learn this message after the selfish act of marital and family abortion, facilitated by the letter-of-the-law-annulment provided by the Church.

In what way did the Church facilitate this?

The pain of abandonment/rejection, facilitated by the Church’s legerdemain, will likely create such a wall of scarring that grace will strain to break through with great difficulty. Six souls that may have been won to faith by loving perseverance of wife/mother #2 are likely forever-lost.

But you see it is not the Church which is at fault here. You even say as much in the section I bolded above…Wife/mother #2 STOPPED persevering lovingly before AND abandoned/rejected her marriage by divorce BEFORE she ever could have applied for an annulment.
By your own construct, she did this because she wished to renew a relationship with another man - indeed had already done so…
It is the woman - not the Church whcih has brought this about.

If the Church taught the marital commandment–esp. the mandate toward reconciliation throughout the twenty years (in homilies, etc.; INSTEAD OF TOLERATING DIVORCE AND PROMOTING ANNULMENTS)–temporary separation, at most, might have occurred. A long-term marriage and another nuclear family might have been preserved, instead of being easily-destroyed!

Now here we get much nearer to the crux of the matter and an area where we can find much agreement.
It seems that over the past 40 or so years…the Pre-Cana process has suffered terribly in the Church. As a result many marriages have been entered into ill advisedly. A false understanding of ecumenism has likewise contributed as well as just a generally poor catechesis of an entire generation of children and their children…
Carping on the number of annulments and trying to accuse the Church of promoting them is simply wrong - it’s looking at the symptom but not seeing the disease.

There is no support of this natural marriage by the Church by providing a red-carpeted exit-way from a two-decade-long marriage and nuclear family! Every husband has faults. It is not the pastor’s job to interject his personal opinions toward a father he rarely sees or knows. His job was to counsel the wife to persevere in her vows toward her beloved, hoping by example to win her unbelieving husband and their children to the faith! Pastor #2 could have suggested the radical sanation requested by Catholic #1. How many pastors routinely fight to keep spouses faithful to their vows (Heb. 13:4) vs. provide easy escape-paths via divorce/annulment during marital dischord with the temptation toward remarriage?

Indeed it is “easy” to see that Pastor #2 didn’t perform his duty to reconcile Catholic #2 in her moments of weakness. More-importantly: Neither did pastor #2 hold wife #2 accountable to God’s marital commandment! By interjecting his own doubts toward unbeliever #2, and by offering the temptation of a red-carpeted annulment, bishop #2–via his agent/pastor #2–helped to destroy/undermine this two-decade-long marriage, family, and likely-alienate six souls from the faith BY CASTING THEM ASUNDER!

Here you are interjecting things not included in the original scenario…You never said that he did NOT council or offer to council the wife to persevere…I know of no priest who would do such a thing…The priest would want to council the couple together. To get to know the father better and learn the dynamic so as to try and save the marriage…

You have created a priest here unlike any I have ever known personally - and certainly one that - if he acted in the way you describe - would not be performing his pastoral duty in the proper way…again - a personal problem - not a problem with Church teaching…

Wife/mother #2 may have been the ONLY LINK toward conversion (hence: salvation) for the six souls in family #2.

Indeed she may have been and it is too bad that, according to the scenario you posted, she began an inappropriate relationship with another man, then sought a way out of her current marriage without offering her husband the opportunity to save the marriage. SHE (not the church) filed for divorce instead of seeking counseling. SHE (not the Church) coveted this other man over her current husband and children. She (not the Church) abandoned the marriage.

Pastor #2 has promoted the road-kill of another broken marriage.

Nothing in the scenario you posited gives any indication that the pastor promoted her getting a divorce…

In their memories, I can easily imagine unbeliever-husband #2 and children #2 forever associating pastor #2 AND HIS BISHOP as the agents who helped destroy their marriage and family and extinguish any love for the faith they may have had!

We cannot control what the husband and children think…They are free will agents.
BUT - the sin of this (if any) lies at the feet of the one who ended the marriage in order to marry another. It does not lie with the Church when she acts properly upon the information provided.

In the provided scenario there are simply too many things left out - and what you try to fill in here paints a very unlikely scenario that tries to lay the majority of the blame on the Church and the Pastor…
Well - let’s look at that.

I agree that there are serious problems with regards to marriage. But concentrating on the Annulment process as the culprit is looking at the wrong end. It is very true that data produced by the annulment process is alarming, but what it points to is not a problem with annulments but a problem with marriage preparation. Marriage preparation that would preclude at the outset the possibility of an annulment later.

So instead of beating up on those involved with the annulment system - seek to beef up the Pre-Cana system.

Peace
James

 

[Sharelle]

Annulment tribunals are able to declare many more marriages null today because the present code of canon law puts the good of the spouses first before the procreation of offspring (p. 13, Judging Invalidity, Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn), and because great importance is given to expert opinions of those in psychiatry and psychology who have been able to argue that some disorders are latent in the subject prior to marriage and surface during the marriage (p. 15, Ibid).

The essence of the good of the spouses or bonum coniugum, is not clear (p. 206, The Invalid Marriage, Fr. Wrenn), but that does not stop tribunals from referring to it in judging marriage cases. Fr. Wrenn refers to a Woody Allen movie Hannah and Her Sisters in his effort to define what it is (p. 211, Ibid).

An example that Fr. Wrenn gives of a disorder being latent is the testimony of a counselor who said that the woman “felt chronically disenfranchised in her relationship with [her husband]” (p. 17, Ibid).

A marriage might be invalid because of lack of form, such as those discussed here, but every marriage can be argued to be invalid by arguing that the good of the spouses is not being served or that disorders are present preventing consent or capacity . The only way Sheila Rauch Kennedy was able to have her declaration of nullity overturned was because some Rotal judges don’t think the way most American tribunalists do.

 

[Corki]

How did pastor/bishop/tribunal #2 help “fix what is broken” in wife/marriage #2?

The very FIRST thing that was broken was that this wife had been living in sin with a man for 20 years. She was pretending to be married when she wasn’t. The pastor in your second example dealt with that in the only manner available given the circumstances you described.

If you want to blame the Church, the blame should go to whoever was responsible for this woman’s religious education. If she was brought up Catholic, she didn’t just find out that her marriage was invalid. She would have known that, as a Catholic, only marriages in the Church are valid. But that’s certainly not the current pastor’s fault.

 

[JRKH]

The very FIRST thing that was broken was that this wife had been living in sin with a man for 20 years. She was pretending to be married when she wasn’t. The pastor in your second example dealt with that in the only manner available given the circumstances you described.

If you want to blame the Church, the blame should go to whoever was responsible for this woman’s religious education. If she was brought up Catholic, she didn’t just find out that her marriage was invalid. She would have known that, as a Catholic, only marriages in the Church are valid. But that’s certainly not the current pastor’s fault.

Peace
James

 

[Vico]

Let’s see…
In scenario number one, the woman asked the husband to have the marriage convalidated in the Church. In the second scenario she did not…WHY??..Not because her husband (non-Catholic) wanted to leave (the principle in the Pauline privilege). The scenario is presented as the husband being shocked at this sudden move…

We cannot apply the Pauline privilege here because that applies where the non-Catholic refuses to live in peace with the Catholic spouse. So - if he left she would be on solid ground. However in the scenario presented, the wife leaves and this is not permitted in St Paul’s instructions on the matter for he says…12 To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. 16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your (unbelieving) husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife? (1 Cor 7) Now - I will grant that there are many details missing from the scenario and hypotheticals are notoriously hard to pin down…But the author must have had a reason for injecting the h.s. sweetheart in there (not present in scenario #1) and NOT asking the husband to have the marriage convalidated in the Church (present in scenario #1)…
These things indicate the wife acting in a less than forthright way toward her husband - and likewise toward her children - and toward the tribunal.
So - having said all of that, I would say that her sin will be “False witness” at the very least…

Peace
James

Scenario 1 & 2 are: lack-of-form and failure to obtain a dispensation to marry a non-Catholic.

In both scenarios, the couple are not validly married because such cannot exist for a Catholic that invalidly attempts to marry without Church approval. A radical sanation applies any valid prior consent, from when that consent was valid, and that currently exists, to create a new marriage from the moment of the grant. It differs from a simple convalidation in that the couple give new consent in a simple convalidation. Neither the Pauline nor Petrine privilege could be applied here because of original lack of canonical form.

So in one scenario the choice is to finally marry the same person of cohabitation, and in the second scenario the choice is to marry somebody else.

 

[SerraSemper]

Consider:

Catholic #1 reads about annulments 20 yrs./5 children after her marriage to a non-Catholic. She realizes her marriage is invalid. Her husband scoffs at the prospect of “renewing their vows” to convalidate their marriage. She petitions for radical sanation and receives it. Their 20-yr.-old “lack-of-form” wedding and failure to obtain a dispensation to marry a non-Catholic is swept aside and their marriage is radically sanated. No one in the parish knows the difference except spouse #1, her pastor and bishop, and the Holy See.

Catholic #2 reads about annulments 20 yrs./5 children after her marriage to a non-Catholic. She realizes her marriage is invalid. She has been chatting with an old, high-school sweetheart online unknown to her husband. She voices her displeasures with her imperfect husband, and files for divorce (her pastor advised her that the local tribunal won’t accept her annulment petition without a divorce decree.) Her children and husband are shocked! (Her pastor has met her husband before and believes he is a poor role-model for their five children.) He helps spouse #2 file a “lack-of-form” petition for an annulment. It is routinely-approved and her husband is informed their marriage never existed. Spouse #2 announces her plans to marry h.s. sweetheart in her local church.

I could devise more such scenarios, and I’m sure there are tens-of-thousands of non-Catholics who wedded spouse #2s who’ve had their marriages declared “non-existent” by the Catholic Church. How can our Church have the hubris to speak of “social justice, of peace, of compassion, and of charity” when it treats loving spouses and their children as in the example of Catholic #2?

This is but one example of how canon law claims to serve the needs “pastorally” of one spouse, while driving a spike through the heart and soul of the other spouse AND THE CHILDREN! Many of these wounded spouses and children leave the faith, never to return!

Christ has a solution (1 Cor. 7:10-11). Legal separations are licit rarely per God’s marital commandment–not divorces! (Legally-separated spouses cannot remarry.) Christ taught troubled spouses to remain single and/or to reconcile with their first spouse. N. American Bishops ignore the marital commandment and give lax annulments instead. [If a bishop teaches you abortion is licit, will that make it so?]

“The vast majority of adults are capable of a valid marriage, and the vast majority of marriages are therefore valid.” Egan, Edward M. “Nullity of Marriage for Reason of Insanity or Lack of Due Discretion of Judgement.” Ephemerides Iuris Canonici Vol. 39. No. 1-2 (1983): p 9-54. Page 36. Cardinal Egan helped revise the current Code of Canon Law.

Many N. American bishops don’t follow Rotal jurisprudence in their tribunals or they wouldn’t be able to dispense a great-majority of their specious annulments. Popes have been saying this every year for decades in their Rotal Addresses. Some of us pray for Divine intervention to occur for marriage to be restored to its rightful dignity.

He helps spouse #2 file a** “lack-of-form” **petition for an annulment.

Lack of form cases are routinely approved, usually within a matter of a couple of weeks. Why? Because they are inexistent marriages in the eyes of the Church. The Church requires for a VALID marriage of a CATHOLIC, that canonical form is observed (minister, two witnesses, and the Marriage Rite) or that a proper dispensation is granted. So, for a lack of form case, the petitioner submits a recent baptismal certificate, a wedding license/certificate, and divorce decree. The Tribunal or Chancery issues a certificate or letter stating that the individuals in this civil law union are free to marry. Why? Because they are SINGLE in the eyes of the Church, and intercourse is fornication. “Spouse #2” is really, SINGLE woman #2 who is shacked up (legally) with a man and has had children with him, but she is free to contemplate marriage with another male since she does happen to be single. Thus there is no sin of adultery. There is no marriage to speak of. While she in justice has to provide adequately for her lover and her children, she really is free to pursue this other man and wed him. Again, this is because a Catholic (in this case it is irrelevant whether it is the woman or the man in this scenario) must follow canonical form (unless dispensed) to have a valid marriage.

Also to the other posters…

A consummated sacramental marriage may not be dissolved.
An unconsummated sacramental marriage can (by the Pope).
Natural marriage can be dissolved by the Pauline or Petrine Privilege (for the Pauline, both parties must be unbaptized and then one gets baptized and the other departs; for the Petrine, at least one party must be unbaptized and the other may marry a Catholic in favor of the Faith.

There is Natural Marriage. Marriages can be contracted by all eligible people. A natural marriage is either valid or invalid depending on what was present at the time of the exchange of consent. ALL marriages but a consummated SACRAMENTAL marriage may be dissolved.

There is Sacramental Marriage. All marriages between the baptized (Catholic or not; and only if they meet their church’s requirements for a valid marriage) are automatically sacramental. These sacramental marriages may be dissolved ONLY if they are unconsummated. Consummated sacramental marriages are indissouable.

A Tribunal looks at all presumptive marriages (parties made vows) and examines whether the couple had all that was required for a valid marriage according to the type of marriage (natural or sacramental). If the Tribunal finds that the couple for whatever reason did not form the bond of natural or sacramental marriage based on the grounds presented by the petitioner and whatever proofs they offered, then the presumption of a valid marriage stands. Only after two trials of two affirmative sentences (three judges typically for two grades plus the lawyer for the bond of marriage for each grade plus other officials of the Court… can a putative marriage (whether natural or sacramental) be declared invalid.